Here is a story that illustrates some of my concerns with NATO. The current secretary-general's term ends this summer and various names have been floated as his successor, among them Peter Mackay and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. But apparently Turkey objects to the Dane's candidacy because he was "unsympathetic" when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad in 2006. We all remember the outrage this little incident stirred in the Muslim world. The National Post reports: "(Turkey's) Prime Minister Tayyip Erogan said Muslim countries wanted Turkey to block [Rasmussen's] appointment."
What is truly outrageous is the idea that Turkey is being influenced at all by other Muslim countries. NATO appointments should be made with NATO's best interests in mind, not the feelings of non-member states. There is some merit to the argument that NATO would be better off with a less antagonizing appointment, but this is a decision for NATO to make.
It may seem like an outdated notion, but NATO is a military alliance that binds countries one to another. A member's action that impacts NATO's sphere should therefore be directed first and foremost by the interest of its allies. NATO countries would do well to remember this, whether they are old members (like the U.S.) or new members (like Turkey).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Turkey should never have been brought into NATO (The Danes also opposed their entry which is another reason Turkey doesn't want them to be in charged).
The idea of NATO isn't that bad as long as the countries are fairly idealistically similar, have a common heritage, historically get along, and have a common enemy. NATO has now moved past that and it's tearing it apart. Too many cooks are spoiling it.
Bryan, it no longer seems clear what NATO's purpose is. If its traditional aims and objectives still hold, then I agree that Turkey was probably not a good candidate for membership. I am also troubled by Georgia's accession.
Georgia should have never been under consideration.
NATO is fairly purposeless today. The members can't agree on who the enemy is, and if they do, how they should be dealt with (Consider Afghanistan).
I should have also added "geographically close" to my list of requirements of NATO. The NATO membership roster should shrink considerably.
Post a Comment